|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
I know that the Minister hates lists, but here he has one. He hates them because people add to them, and I am not going to disappoint him here. There are other appropriate reasons why one may need a different route, such as the nesting season. Maybe you do not want people walking through a site then. In Norfolk, for instance, where I come from, nesting sites for terns are cordoned off so that people cannot go through them during that season.
Another reason might be that there is a military live-firing range. I do not know what the proposals are for ranges by the sea. It may be that, when the military is not using them, the coast next to the seashore can be used. And then, of course, there is shooting. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that the public are well informed when alternative routes must be used?
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend went rather rapidly over the distinction between flooding, the tide and erosion or encroachment. Like him, I had a problem with the term optional. I can see that it would be an option not to get your feet wet, but is it really a sensible option to fall into the void created by erosion? The clause seems to be dealing with very different circumstances but describing the remedy in the same way, which is not entirely appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they have raised on this interesting part of the Bill. In general, the clause is a useful addition; it provides some flexibility for the circumstances described in this part of the Bill. It is an example of how the Bill seeks to anticipate circumstances that might arise and not then cause a halt to the coastal route, so as a general point this is a sensible proposal.
Noble Lords have raised a number of interesting questions and examples. They question whether the Bill as it is drafted really meets those circumstances, and I will look at these matters between Committee and Report to ensure that I am satisfied that it does. A number of interesting points have been made here.
Amendment A331 would change the wording so that instead of saying that Natural England may provide for an alternative route, it would say that Natural England must, where appropriate, include such a proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that he might be being somewhat overprescriptive, and I think he is. The important point is that Natural England has the ability to propose alternative routes where it considers that it is appropriate to do so, which is implied by the use of the word may.
I realise that if the noble Lord had proposed must and not where appropriate, my argument against him would be stronger; if that were the case, Natural England would have to consider on every stretch of the route whether an alternative route was appropriate and where it should go. By the use of the phrase where appropriate he has qualified the use of the word must, but on the other hand I have no reason to think that the use of the word may would inhibit Natural England from taking a sensible and proportionate approach to this.
We then have a series of amendments, A333 to A336, the effect of which would be that an alternative route could be provided only when an exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II of Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was in force or in an estuary when a ferry was not working. My problem with that is that the amendments would essentially remove Natural Englands ability to specify any other period during which an alternative route may operate and remove the four situations that are listed in the Bill where an optional alternative route might be put in place when a route is unsuitable for usefor instance, for flooding, the action of the tide, coastal erosion or encroachment of the sea or the effect of any other geomorphological process.
The noble Lord posed the question: if an alternative route is prescribed, what are the options for people to use it? That is not how we see it; we see the alternative route being used only when the particular conditions set out in subsection (4)(a) to (d) apply. However, the person exercising their right can also exercise their judgment about whether those conditions apply. I am not suggesting that we are going to have notices up and down the country saying at which moment an alternative route may apply or not. We have to have some flexibility with regard to that.
There are other issues listed in this clause that noble Lords have raised. On the question of the Ministry of Defence, MoD ranges are usually military by-lawed
21 Apr 2009 : Column 1426
Lord Greaves: Will the Minister consider further the question I raised about the specified period or periods and this extraordinarily convoluted new Section 55C(5) which says what specified means. Perhaps he could write and explain this to us. I am not particularly concerned about knowing exactly what it means in a grammatical sense as it seems to mean people specified or appointed in lots of different ways. I am interested to know, however, what kind of things it refers to. I was not trying to take it out but probing what kind of circumstances are in the minds of the people who wrote this legislation, of the Minister, of Natural England or of anybody else who was involved in it. It is not clear and I cannot think of any sensible circumstances, but that may be because I do not understand it. Can the Minister set out some circumstances in which it might be used?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will do my best. If you look at the wording of new Section 55CI know it has its momentsthe critical part is new subsection (4), which sets out the conditions in which the ordinary route or path might be regarded as unsuitable. There may be circumstances in which the unsuitability relates to a period of time. New Section 55C(3) is needed to allow Natural England to use that specification. That would be my answer to the noble Lord, but I am happy to dig deep to give some examples if we can find them.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister. I should also have said that I am grateful to the Minister for saying he would look at the totality of this debate and the points that have been raised. The Minister has now raised the interesting question as to whether new subsection (3) and new subsection (4) may operate together because new subsection (5) refers only to new subsection (3) and not to new subsection (4). That also relates to a question that the Minister may want to look at and write to us about. Why is the wording of new subsection (3) different from the wording of new subsection (4)? New subsection (3) refers to,
Again, I do not think the Minister has answered the question whether it will be an option at any time. If it is not supposed to be an option at any time, how will it be policed? There does not seem to be any sense to having rules which say you can come along this path, which may well become a well-trodden and clear path, but you are not supposed to go there if instead you can go along the beach if the tide is not in. If it is an optional path surely it should be an optional path at all times, otherwise it does not make sense. I do not think it can be policed. If it cannot even be informally policed by peer pressure there is no sense in it.
Earl Cathcart: I thought I was clear on this when the Minister said that interesting points had been raised and that he would take them away for consideration. He then said that the four conditions were flooding, tide, erosion and geomorphological processes. This seemed to suggest that those were the four things. When I spoke earlier I mentioned other things such as alternative paths to avoid nesting sites during specific periods. The Minister mentioned my point about the MoD but I also mentioned shooting. I read or heard somewhere that it was possible to have an alternative site if there was a party of people shooting. I should like clarification on that.
Baroness Hamwee: To add to the Ministers considerations, I wonder whether this clause could be looked at alongside new Section 55B because new Section 55C covers such a variety of things which we are describing in some cases as optional alternatives but in other cases as replacements, which would come more suitably in new Section 55B rather than in new Section 55C. This may be where some of the confusion and certainly my confusion arises.
Baroness Byford: The way I read it as an amateur from the Back Benches is that new subsection (4) spoke for itselfthose were the reasons for there being an alternative route. My noble friend was right to touch on the breeding season but we could be talking about the burning of heather or any other reason. I had assumed that that applied to new subsection (3) and the definition applied to new subsection (4) but if I am not right I should like to have it clarified.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The substantive part of this clause is new subsection (4), which sets out the circumstances. Noble Lords have raised other circumstances. I thought I had answered the question in relation to MoD land where I said it would be treated as excepted land but the MoD might then decide to open up firing ranges if it was appropriate and safe to do so. Other examples have been given such as the question of nesting. These matters will be dealt with as the plans for the coastal path are developed. That may be a factor in deciding where the route goes in the first place. I have said, however, that I will look at these examples to make sure that we are covered in relation to alternative routes.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is critical of the wording but I do not see a conflict between new subsections (3), (4) and (5). I am clear that new
21 Apr 2009 : Column 1428
Lord Greaves: I am grateful for those further assurances from the Minister, and I add two points. He is now saying that new subsection (3) qualifies new subsection (4). That is not how I had read or understood them; they refer to different circumstances. New subsection (3) is not a means of qualifying proposed new subsection (4). This needs looking at again.
As the Minister just said, we want something that is understandable and will work. I take the view, perhaps slightly arrogantly, that if I cannot understand it then lots of other people will not be able to understand it. Perhaps I am thicker than most, but I do not usually encounter that. We must get it clear.
Secondly, if new subsections (3) and (4) are separate, why is there different wording? There must be some reason for it. That is at the heart of it. Having said thatand we will have further discussions about thisI beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves: I also speak to Amendment A341, which is the substantive amendment in this group. I seek to set out a clear and comprehensive consultation process during the preparation of proposal reports, which Natural England is responsible for producing for each section of the coast.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon when he was talking about the importance of local authority involvement, is at the heart of this. It is very important indeed that the schemes are put together in a clear, open, transparent and consultative way, that representations are properly considered in a clear, open and transparent way, and that, as far as possible, the proposals for each section of the coast are made on the basis of consensus, or as much local
21 Apr 2009 : Column 1429
The regulations will require Natural England to advertise that they are preparing a coastal access report for a section of coast. They will have to consult with each local authority and national park authority, persons with a relevant interest in the land, each local access forum, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, the Environment Agency,
If I have read its reports and draft scheme correctly, this would place in the Bill what Natural England is probably going to do anyway. However, as I have said before, it is such an important thing that it ought to be in the Bill so that it cannot be changed in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We were intending to discuss the consultation process in the next group. Noting the support that the amendments in this group give to local democracy, I question the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on proposed new subsection (4) and the listing of what local authority means. Unitary authorities and metropolitan boroughs also adjacent to the coast should really be listed there. I am not sure whether the grouping as listed covers all local authorities that are likely to be affected, or that want and need consultation.
Lord Greaves: I can answer that before the Minister replies: it does. This is the normal list that appears in local government legislation. Unitary authorities are all either counties or districts, and metropolitan districts are districts, so this covers them all.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for that clarification. Clause 292 amends Part IV of the National Parks and Access to
21 Apr 2009 : Column 1430
During the passage of this Bill, the Government have made their views on lists pretty clear. However, in Part 9 of the Bill it is important that we update the list included in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but that does not mean that we should extend it to include all the organisations which might need to be consulted. We need to retain some degree of flexibility. The noble Lords proposal, about which he is quite frank, is to put his list in the Bill. However, we should not be including consultees for definitive maps on rights of way in this legislation. It is entirely different from the 1949 legislation.
Amendment A341 would insert a new section setting out a number of requirements on Natural England at the stage of their consultation during the preparation of their coastal access report. The amendment is too prescriptive and goes too far. The process for consultation in new Section 55D was drawn up to reflect what is already in Section 51 of the 1949 Act, and that places sufficient requirements on Natural England to consult appropriately. Indeed, Natural Englands scheme, published in December 2008 and which we have made available to noble Lords, already builds in such a draft report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was generous enough to say that he thought that Natural England would probably do what he was prescribing. He is right, but he wants it in the Bill and I am not convinced that that degree of prescription is necessary.
Natural England has already said that it will publish its draft proposals on the internet. It will invite all relevant interests to comment on them. It will allow a 12-week period for people to view the proposals and submit comments on the report. Natural England is fulfilling the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but his amendment would put in the Bill a prescription that is a step too far because of its rigidity and the limitations that it puts on Natural England, which will work very much along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has suggested. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves: I shall certainly do that in a minute. Can the Minister answer a couple of questions? First, which of the organisations listed here does the Minister think should not be consulted? This is not really a list, but a process that involves a list. Secondly, which of the stages in the consultation process that I have put forward does the Minister think should not take place?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord presents those questions against a context in which he wants to rewrite this section of the Bill. I understand why he wants to do so. I do not say that his list does not have a large degree of accuracy to it, but the problem with being prescriptive about those terms is that it reduces flexibility. It binds Natural England against what is in
21 Apr 2009 : Column 1431
The noble Lord will appreciate that the problem with lists is that they are exhaustive today and very far from being exhaustive and complete five years from now. The problem, then, is that this will be in primary legislation. The noble Lord should surely accept that when we discuss an issue of process there has to be some element of flexibility to it. That is why I ask him to think again about how prescriptive this particular part of the Bill should be and to reconsider his amendment.
Lord Greaves: The Minister convinces me that the amendment is right. If he reads the list carefully, he will find that it does not in any way prevent future flexibility; it is specifically written in general and generic terms so that exactly the people who need to be on the list can be put on it in the future. The decision will be the Secretary of States. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|